Reference no: EM133526499

Assignment:

Preliminary Lesson:

One of the timeless questions of philosophers has to do with the nature of reality. Within this question lies another question that has been called "the problem of the one and the many." From the dawn of what is typically recognized as philosophy in the West, this has been a returning question. Usually it is classified under the heading "Cosmology." This is basically the attempt to understand the nature of the cosmos. Cosmos means the universe seen as a kind of ordered whole; thus, it is not thought to be absolutely random and confused.

In order to think of the universe as having a fundamental order, philosophers sought some kind of unifying principle. The Greek word for this was "ARCHE." There were various ways in which this principle was conceived. We will see some of these ideas as we proceed, but for now it is important to grasp what was meant by "arche"

An arche was a principle of order, as we mentioned above. This order should be understood in four concepts that go together:

• Beginning
• Origin
• Source
• Rule

A beginning, thought in terms of time, is a first happening of some sort. This is a chronological beginning. But this is not the only way to think of firsts. We could also think of something being first in importance, for example. This would mean it had a rank in the order of value. The arche thought in terms of beginning and origin has to be understood as more than just a chronological beginning. It is first in rank too. This is why it is a first principle.

If the arche is more than a simple first act in chronological time, for example, I touch a series of dominoes with my finger and start them falling, 5hen the idea of source is also included in the ideas of origin and beginning. A source is like a continuing sustenance of something. A source sustains. You might imagine a spring that emerges out of the ground and forms a stream. The source would be the hidden supply that sustains that stream. ThT's easy to imagine about a particular stream, but it is more difficult to conceive if you are trying to understand the source and sustenance of the whole universe, that is, the principle that supplies order for the ordered whole of the cosmos.

Now if order is what is sustained by this arche, that is also a problem, for how does it accomplish this ordering? This ordering is what we meant by our fourth way of understanding arche, "rule." The idea of "rule" supplies order in many ways. A king rules a kingdom. A yardstick, as a "ruler" supplies a constant way of measuring. A rule of logic or even geometry supplies order for thinking and measuring geometrical shapes. These are just a few examples of order. In short, the arche, as first principle, must be a beginning that is an origin, which is a source and sustenance that imposes order.

An arche had to be the first principle of everything that is. In other words, it had to be the ground or foundation of everything, but it could not rely on or depend on any other principle for its own foundation. In a sense you could say regarding any first principle, "the buck stops here." This situation raises any number of philosophical problems, and the nature of the problem arises from how we think about the first principle. Let me give you just one example.

Suppose you think of this first principle in terms of cause. Your normal understanding of cause might tell you that cause is like dominoes toppling over. You start the first domino falling, and a chain reaction occurs where all the other dominoes fall down in sequence. In this idea of cause, you are the first agent that starts the chain reaction. But what if you are questioning the first cause of the universe? The agent in this case cannot be part of the chain reaction; otherwise, you would have to then ask, what caused the agent of the cause? This would throw you into what we call an "infinite regress." The "buck" would no longer "stop here." You would have to conceive of a completely different kind of causality to account for the first cause. This is just one example of a philosophical problem that could arise. I selected it specifically because later we will learn that Aristotle had four ways of thinking about causality that may seem very strange to us.

We started with this: One of the timeless questions of philosophers has to do with the nature of reality. Within this question lies another question that has been called "the problem of the one and the many." In the discussion we were introduced to some ideas:

1. The cosmos as a unified whole
2. First principles or "arches."
3. Ways of understanding the term "arche"
4. First principles and causation

All this is a big chunk to bite off and chew., but it is really just a tip of the iceberg. I want you to ponder all this. As you work your way through Module 1., but for now I want you to answer one question. Your answer must come from your own thought processes. Don't go out onto the Internet trying to look up the answer. I will notice if you have done this and you will lose points.

Question: What is the nature of reality?

To answer this you might try to adderss these two things: what do we mean when we say "the nature of" and what do we mean by "reality."